Title: Six Degrees Director: Ron Bowman Release Year: 2008 What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film was a high budget film which walked the viewer through the effects of global warming as calculated at various temperatures. At first it started with the current average temperature, and moved up in degrees from 1 to 6. As the film progressed, the predictions became more and more horrendous while also becoming less accurate. The film argues that while a few degrees might not make a drastic difference to our way of life, anything above 3 degrees becomes incredibly hard to calculate, with theorists suggesting that drastic global changes will take place which could lead to a completely different earth as we know it. The final degree it discussed opened up the possibility that humans might in fact, through our own misunderstanding and greed, destroy our civilization and possibly our entire species.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The matrix of problems involved spread from the drying of cattle ranches to the flooding of major coastal cities, all brought on by global warming caused by the trapping of greenhouse gasses within our atmosphere. These greenhouse gasses are caused by pollution brought about by humans: from the burning of fossil fuels to our dairy farms (which the film tells us cause more greenhouse gas release than the entire SUV population of the united states) to our destruction of the rain forest. There are many industries involved here, and the film touches on a few of them. The cattle ranch and dairy farm industry are a few of these. The film discusses rancher’s plight with drying grasslands, with cattle running out of food and water. Ironically enough, part of this is cause by the cows themselves, whose populations are now so high that their waste, which is stored in huge lakes, is causing extreme methane release. It was calculated that for every cheeseburger bought in the United States, 2 metric tons of greenhouse gasses are released.
Another issue which was discussed was how temperature change effects what plants can grow in specific areas or not. One specific example discussed by the film was the wine industry. In the past, France has always been known for its excellent wines. England, on the other hand, has traditionally been scoffed at for its wine making ability. Recently, however, as temperatures have been warming, grapes have been able to grow more effectively in England, and thus the country has been producing much better wines. Although this is a good thing for England, France’s higher temperatures have been slowing its own wine production. This is a small change, and doesn’t pose much of a threat to anybody in the short term (aside from French wine enthusiasts and growers), but points out the problem of moving temperate zones. What would happen, for instance, if the United States’ entire Midwest zone grew too warm to produce maze?
As the film moved through all six degrees, the problems became graver in nature. At two degrees, the island of country of Tuvalu was predicted to be entirely under water. As the sea temperature grows coral reefs might suffer tremendous loss, not only destroy part of the oceans vast and complex eco-system but taking with it a huge producer of oxygen. At three degrees heat waves similar to the Paris Heat Wave of 2003 would be common place, and storms such as Katrina, spurred by an ever increasing El Niña, would happen much more frequently. A four degree increase would mean the end for low altitude countries such as Bangladesh, and rivers such as the Ganges would undergo massive flooding and then dry up. At five and six degrees, scientists can only speculate. The speculations, however, involve such possibilities as the ocean being unable to support life, and a massive replacing of forests with dessert. Essentially, life as we know it would be completely out of the question. All of this, the film continues to reinforce, would stem from the greenhouse gasses which we are releasing into the atmosphere.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
This film tried to shock the viewer using all three appeals. It took great pains to show the suffering which is currently going on in the world from droughts and forest fires, focusing on individual’s emotions. The cattle rancher whose cows were all at risk of dying from dehydration, for instance, was shown talking about the risk his family and livelihood was in to great extent. The film was also jam packed full statistics. From events in the past which have caused great suffering, such as the heat wave in France, to the models which certain scientists say accurately predict the outcome of global warming, the film had tons of numbers to put up on the screen. All of these point quite convincingly to the conclusion that, if the earth continues to warm up, nasty things will happen and we will, at best, have to alter the way in which we survive.
What parts of the film were you not compelled by?
Although both of these methods conveyed quite accurately how awful things would be if the globe warmed up, they did little to point to the fact that it actually is. Although they have a few statistics showing that the world has warmed, on average, one degree, the correlation between this fact and human interaction with the globe is poorly shown at best. Also, the films shock value was, at times, a little overwhelming. During one of the opening scenes, they followed a father in Australia as he got family prepared for a forest fire which was supposedly moving into the area. It is clear that it is a dire situation, and one is easily moved by the scene. The final shot, however, shows the father as he and other home owners are pouring water over the roofs of their houses. As the camera pans upwards, what is clearly a computer generated scene of flames and destruction is displayed on the horizon. This destroys the sense of urgency and focus which was so craftily built up over the preceding minutes. This and other overly dramatic scenes do little to enhance the notion that this is, in fact, a real problem. Instead they do more do convince the viewer that these are simply overly dramatic scare tactics designed to keep them in their seats.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Interestingly, the film did little to motivate me into looking at further information as to what will happen when the world gets warmer; it already did that to great effect. Instead, the film moved me to do further research into the actual causes of this warming. Are human beings, in fact, the cause of this, or is it the rearranging of the earth’s poles perhaps that are doing it? And is the globe, in fact, going to continue heating up? These are the questions, among others, were the ones which I felt compelled to ask as the film ended, as opposed to ones geared towards what the earth would be like if it indeed were heating.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
This film did little to show what an individual can do against the tide of global warming. Instead it mentioned a few far reaching alternatives, which felt right in line with the ridiculous numbers and predictions it had for global warming itself. Of the many alternatives it mentioned, carbon capture and alternative power were two which stuck out. For carbon capture it mentioned how we already have the basic technology to do it, and although ironic (as we gathered the carbon creating minerals to begin with.
Director: Ron Bowman
Release Year: 2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film was a high budget film which walked the viewer through the effects of global warming as calculated at various temperatures. At first it started with the current average temperature, and moved up in degrees from 1 to 6. As the film progressed, the predictions became more and more horrendous while also becoming less accurate. The film argues that while a few degrees might not make a drastic difference to our way of life, anything above 3 degrees becomes incredibly hard to calculate, with theorists suggesting that drastic global changes will take place which could lead to a completely different earth as we know it. The final degree it discussed opened up the possibility that humans might in fact, through our own misunderstanding and greed, destroy our civilization and possibly our entire species.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The matrix of problems involved spread from the drying of cattle ranches to the flooding of major coastal cities, all brought on by global warming caused by the trapping of greenhouse gasses within our atmosphere. These greenhouse gasses are caused by pollution brought about by humans: from the burning of fossil fuels to our dairy farms (which the film tells us cause more greenhouse gas release than the entire SUV population of the united states) to our destruction of the rain forest. There are many industries involved here, and the film touches on a few of them. The cattle ranch and dairy farm industry are a few of these. The film discusses rancher’s plight with drying grasslands, with cattle running out of food and water. Ironically enough, part of this is cause by the cows themselves, whose populations are now so high that their waste, which is stored in huge lakes, is causing extreme methane release. It was calculated that for every cheeseburger bought in the United States, 2 metric tons of greenhouse gasses are released.
Another issue which was discussed was how temperature change effects what plants can grow in specific areas or not. One specific example discussed by the film was the wine industry. In the past, France has always been known for its excellent wines. England, on the other hand, has traditionally been scoffed at for its wine making ability. Recently, however, as temperatures have been warming, grapes have been able to grow more effectively in England, and thus the country has been producing much better wines. Although this is a good thing for England, France’s higher temperatures have been slowing its own wine production. This is a small change, and doesn’t pose much of a threat to anybody in the short term (aside from French wine enthusiasts and growers), but points out the problem of moving temperate zones. What would happen, for instance, if the United States’ entire Midwest zone grew too warm to produce maze?
As the film moved through all six degrees, the problems became graver in nature. At two degrees, the island of country of Tuvalu was predicted to be entirely under water. As the sea temperature grows coral reefs might suffer tremendous loss, not only destroy part of the oceans vast and complex eco-system but taking with it a huge producer of oxygen. At three degrees heat waves similar to the Paris Heat Wave of 2003 would be common place, and storms such as Katrina, spurred by an ever increasing El Niña, would happen much more frequently. A four degree increase would mean the end for low altitude countries such as Bangladesh, and rivers such as the Ganges would undergo massive flooding and then dry up. At five and six degrees, scientists can only speculate. The speculations, however, involve such possibilities as the ocean being unable to support life, and a massive replacing of forests with dessert. Essentially, life as we know it would be completely out of the question. All of this, the film continues to reinforce, would stem from the greenhouse gasses which we are releasing into the atmosphere.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
This film tried to shock the viewer using all three appeals. It took great pains to show the suffering which is currently going on in the world from droughts and forest fires, focusing on individual’s emotions. The cattle rancher whose cows were all at risk of dying from dehydration, for instance, was shown talking about the risk his family and livelihood was in to great extent. The film was also jam packed full statistics. From events in the past which have caused great suffering, such as the heat wave in France, to the models which certain scientists say accurately predict the outcome of global warming, the film had tons of numbers to put up on the screen. All of these point quite convincingly to the conclusion that, if the earth continues to warm up, nasty things will happen and we will, at best, have to alter the way in which we survive.
What parts of the film were you not compelled by?
Although both of these methods conveyed quite accurately how awful things would be if the globe warmed up, they did little to point to the fact that it actually is. Although they have a few statistics showing that the world has warmed, on average, one degree, the correlation between this fact and human interaction with the globe is poorly shown at best. Also, the films shock value was, at times, a little overwhelming. During one of the opening scenes, they followed a father in Australia as he got family prepared for a forest fire which was supposedly moving into the area. It is clear that it is a dire situation, and one is easily moved by the scene. The final shot, however, shows the father as he and other home owners are pouring water over the roofs of their houses. As the camera pans upwards, what is clearly a computer generated scene of flames and destruction is displayed on the horizon. This destroys the sense of urgency and focus which was so craftily built up over the preceding minutes. This and other overly dramatic scenes do little to enhance the notion that this is, in fact, a real problem. Instead they do more do convince the viewer that these are simply overly dramatic scare tactics designed to keep them in their seats.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Interestingly, the film did little to motivate me into looking at further information as to what will happen when the world gets warmer; it already did that to great effect. Instead, the film moved me to do further research into the actual causes of this warming. Are human beings, in fact, the cause of this, or is it the rearranging of the earth’s poles perhaps that are doing it? And is the globe, in fact, going to continue heating up? These are the questions, among others, were the ones which I felt compelled to ask as the film ended, as opposed to ones geared towards what the earth would be like if it indeed were heating.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
This film did little to show what an individual can do against the tide of global warming. Instead it mentioned a few far reaching alternatives, which felt right in line with the ridiculous numbers and predictions it had for global warming itself. Of the many alternatives it mentioned, carbon capture and alternative power were two which stuck out. For carbon capture it mentioned how we already have the basic technology to do it, and although ironic (as we gathered the carbon creating minerals to begin with.